Taxin’ yer brain here: Remember “Remember NASA’s arsenic origin of life study?” From yesterday? 😉 Therein, we learned of the ill-starred efforts of a scientist to replicate NASA’s original findings consistently.
Now a scientist friend drops us a note to say that the researcher we quoted, Rosie Redfield, had attacked the Nature paper when it first came out, claiming it should never have been published. Well, that deepens the picture.
He goes on to say that a biochemist friend notes that anaerobes are much more difficult to grow than people realize, and that it is regarded as an art rather than a science. (In other words, intuitive problem-solving may succeed where standard operating procedure fails.)
The bottom line is to get them to grow in one’s lab, as they do in the lake bed, and then see whether arsenic is detected in the DNA.
Another scientist who has grown anaerobic bacteria, wonder whether she is using the right setup, and suggested
I would like her to grow something else bona fide anaerobically before attempting arsenic. I still contend that we sell bacteria short of their full potential (think that we have arrived and they’re still up and coming).
Well, if she ever reads this, we will leave her to consider the advice.
Follow UD News at Twitter!